Our U.S. government and mainstream media institutions feed off and take full advantage of our short memory or short attention spans. However, with the new electronic media created by those on the Internet, our collective memories and attention spans can be recharged whenever it becomes necessary. The upcoming 2010 elections are one of those occasions where the following news of 1999 needs to be reintroduced.

Before I continue, PLEASE, if you love America and sincerely want to fix her, click the following links that will open in a new window. On both links you’ll find your specific state and how your elected federal leaders voted on Senate Bill 900.

Pay close attention to all members of Congress who voted YEA… The YEA votes are what set in motion the greatest self-made economic disaster to ever hit the U.S. economy… If YOU want to hold our government leaders accountable and, any of these CROOKS are still being paid to represent you, VOTE THEM OUT! If you’ve already contributed to their re-election campaign, ASK FOR A REFUND!

This bill repealed the Glass-Steagall Act that prevented the merging of banks, insurance and investment securities companies. Without regulation, the end result was the creation of mega-corporations who’s lust for making billions of dollars outweighed the establishment of any security measures that would safeguard you from losing your home, job, medical insurance, investments, pensions or college funds to educate your children.

Those who directly benefited from this fraud and corruption are the very same entities that gave big campaign contributions to those who voted YEA on S-900… When AG’s from several states attempted to regulate the financial industry in the early to mid 2000′s, neither the President (Bush), Congress, RNC or DNC did anything to act on our behalf.

If Not Ourselves, Who’s Lookin’ Out For America And Americas Future?

DNC and RNC partisanship has created the mess we’re in… Can we continue our unbridledÂ TRUST with either political party? Tell Reps. Ron Paul, Marci Kaptur, Alan Grayson and Senator Bernie Sanders that “We The People” want and will support a new Independent political ARMY to reform our governments from Main Street to Wall Street…

Who Defines Transparency in Government?

U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders

January 29, 2010

In a break with decades of Senate confirmation votes on Federal Reserve chairmen, almost twice as many senators as ever before on Thursday voted to deny Ben Bernanke a second term as head of the central bank. “It is a rebuke. They can’t spin it any other way,” Sanders told Thom Hartmann’s nationally-syndicated talk radio program. On Wednesday, a special joint session of Congress convened for what Sanders called a “strong and persuasive” State of the Union address by President Obama that emphasized the need to create more jobs to pull the United States out of a recession. In Vermont, a $50 million grant to upgrade passenger rail service, and create jobs in the process, was announced by the congressional delegation on Thursday.

The Fed The Senate sent a clear signal to the Federal Reserve with an historic number of “no” votes on the confirmation of Ben Bernanke to a second term as chairman of the central bank. The roll call vote on Bernanke was 70 to 30, more “no” votes than were ever cast in opposition to a nominee for Fed chairman. “The Senate vote sends a loud and clear message to the Fed and to Chairman Bernanke: Start representing the needs of the middle class and working families, not just Wall Street CEOs. Stop credit card ripoffs. Free up credit for small businesses. Break up big banks, and stop the secrecy surrounding trillions of dollars in blind loans,” said Sanders, a leader of the opposition to Bernanke. To read more about the opposition to Bernanke in The New York Times, click here. To see what Sanders told Vermont Public Radio, click here. To watch the senator’s floor speech, click here.

State of the Union President Obama promised to make jobs his top priority as the country struggles to recover from the severe recession.Â “To Democrats, I would remind you that we still have the largest majority in decades, and the people expect us to solve some problems, not run for the hills,” Obama told a joint session of Congress.Â “I thought the president gave a strong, persuasive and articulate speech,” Sanders said afterward. “As he indicated, this country faces some of the most serious problems that we have ever encountered, including the worst economy since the Great Depression.Â The president is right in saying that as Americans ‘we don’t quit.’ I have every confidence that the American people – with our energy, idealism and intelligence – can fight our way through the current crises and leave our children a better country than we inherited.”

White House Reboots The Obama administration on Thursday outlined a strategy for breaking the partisan logjam holding up Obama’s agenda.Â The White House said it would focus on job creation, reducing the deficit and imposing tighter regulation on banks before returning to health care, Obama’s top priority last year. Even some allies were skeptical about Obama’s outreach. Â ”In order to dance, you need a dance partner and there ain’t no partner out there,” Sanders told The New York Times. To read the article, click here.

High-Speed Rail The day after his State of the Union speech, Obama continued to talk about ways to create jobs. As part of an $8 billion nationwide investment in passenger railroad service, the White House announced that Vermont will receive $50 million for major rail improvements along Amtrak’s Vermonter line. The funding will help pay for construction of track, roadbed and bridge improvements along 190 miles of railroad used by Amtrak Vermonter service between St. Albans, Vt., and Springfield, Mass., according to the U.S. Department of Transportation. The upgrade will reduce trip times and improve reliability. Sanders said, “This is great news. It will create much-need jobs for Vermont now, provide a long-term boost for our economic future, and help Vermont become energy efficient as we strengthen our public transportation. I thank President Obama and the Department of Transportation for understanding Vermont’s important role in the northeastern United States transportation network.” To read more about it, click here.

Solar Energy Jobs Sen. Sanders, chairman of the Green Jobs and New Economy Subcommittee, held a hearing this week on the opportunism presented for job growth in the solar energy industry.Â The senator announced that he will introduce legislation to calls for the installation of 10 million rooftop solar systems on homes and businesses across the country over the next ten years.Â Sanders welcomed to the hearing Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar as well as solar industry experts like Jeff Wolfe, chief executive officer of groSolar in White River Junction, Vermont.Â To watch the senator’s opening statement (minute 22:00) and/or Wolfe’s testimony (minute 95:20), click here.

Vermont Yankee Following recent alarming news about the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant in southeastern Vermont, the state’s congressional delegation called the Nuclear Regulatory Commission chairman to Capitol Hill for a meeting.Â Chairman Jaczko told Sens. Sanders and Leahy and Rep. Welch that the commission is conducting a full investigation and is working to identify and remedy the leak, and is assessing whether company officials misled regulators about the potential risk from underground piping at the plant.Â They have dispatched two additional investigators to the plant.Â The delegation said, “We remain deeply troubled about the radioactive leak at the Vermont Yankee plant, and called on Chairman Jaczko and the NRC to use all authority granted to the NRC under federal law to investigate the cause of this leak and work to fix it.”Â To read more, click here.

Dairy and Agriculture Sen. Sanders invited Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack to Vermont for a series of events.Â Sanders will host the former governor of Iowa at a public town meeting on dairy issues on February 13 at 10am in the Burlington Hilton.Â He will also accompany the USDA secretary to the organic farming association conference.Â Sen. Patrick Leahy will also participate in the dairy town meeting panel and will host the secretary as he speaks to the St. Albans Cooperative Creamery Annual Meeting in St. Albans.Â Sanders was recently able to pass legislation to provide $350 million in dairy assistance to struggling farmers through the USDA.Â In 2009, dairy farmers experienced the lowest prices in 40 years. As prices plunged, family dairy farms in Vermont and around the country went out of business.

New Poll Thinking about the current level of unemployment, have we pretty much hit the bottom, or is there still a ways to go before we hit the bottom?Â Which do you think should be more important in Washington? Reduce deficit even if unemployment remains high or create more jobs even if it means less deficit reduction.Â Regarding federal spending to help homeowners facing foreclosure or who have already lost their homes to foreclosure, do you think there has been too much, too little, or about the right amount?Â To take the poll, click here.

Editors comment: If your members of the U.S. Senate or Congress aren’t this open and transparent, whether you agree with them or not, perhaps you need to vote them out. America cannot tolerate dead weight in “The Peoples” chambers any longer. Senator Sanders, thank you!…Senator Patty Murray, you’re dead weight… and, I’m not a republican or partisan hack, what are you?

ACTION ITEMÂ
Bay News 9 is conducting a poll about your opinion of PresidentÂ Obama after hisÂ State of Union speech.
Please go to this siteÂ http://www.baynews9.com/iPolls.htmlÂ and place your vote, and don’t miss the comments.

I pledge “Corporate” Allegiance to the flag of the United States of the Socially Oppressed, and to the gods ofÂ K and Wall Street for which it stands, one nation under absolute control of The Elite, without liberty or justice for the underlings amongst us.

Attention: All Conservative Republicans… The corporate propaganda machine is running in full spin cycle. When President Obama says, “the last eight years,” he’s absolutely correct and here’s the proof that was written and sponsored by former Texas Republican Phil Gramm. Please keep in mind, I’m not a liberal democrat nor am I a corporate lapdog.

Our economic mess began in 1999… In the early 2000′s, Several state AG’s traveled to Washington DC pleading to the Comptroller of the Currency to regulate predatory lending… The Bush administration sided with those who were reaping enormous profits (banks, mortgage companies, investment securities companies, insurance companies, lobbyist, lawyers, RE developers, RE agents, appraisers, title companies, etc…)…

S-900 was Republican deregulation that Clinton and most democrats at that time agreed with… Barack Obama was nowhere near Washington DC in 1999. Checkout the voting records of the 106th. Congress…

Both parties were wrong in overturning Glass-Steagall… Both parties are responsible for the outcome… President Obama is saying that when the states began noticing a real problem Bush should of done something…

As a side note, Washington DC lobbyist flooded Georgia in 2002 to defeat Gov. Roy Barnes(D) who wrote and passed the Georgia Fair Lending Act (GFLA)… This act held those holding bundled predatory loans (derivatives) liable if they went into default, this included Fannie and Freddie. Big K-Street and Wall Street money defeated Gov. Barnes and the newly elected Republican Governor gutted the GFLA in early 2003 shortly after being sworn in…

On Thursday afternoon, during a live conservative radio talk show, I called in to debate this very same point with a GOP cheerleader who was following the standard GOP talking points that consumed like minded conservative programming. When the hosts realized that I had him beat on substance I was abruptly cut-off. Like liberal cheerleaders, conservatives don’t like having to admit they’re wrong.

Please, stop being duped. If you want the truth and nothing but the truth, say goodbye to beltway television and radio talk shows where the hosts is simply repeating what’s heard on Fox News. Freedom From The Press is alive and growing for good reason. If you’re an author or journalist and you want to make FFTP better, click the ‘contact us’ link above and become apart of Americas truth-based solution.

I’ve written in the past where I believe American political corruption begins and ends. These articles are then sent to news sites such as CNN, Fox News, the Huffington Post, OpEdNews and other less read sites. Some articles are even sent to whitehouse.gov and the FCC. On rare occasion will I ever receive any feedback from anyone. At times, I’ll receive some half-baked explanation for why my viewpoints and constructive solutions are being censored as “promotional material” that will only be published if I purchase their advertising space. That’s right, if I want the truth to reach certain readers I’ll be required to pay before access is granted and the article is published.

What are the most important political issues facing America that are being censored by all U.S. mainstream media companies?

Thousands, millions if not billions of dollars are being raised by Americans seeking public office, where’s it being spent?

Should all entities receiving campaign funds be required by law to make full public disclosure?

Why are underfunded credible candidates being denied access by those in the media who cover elections?

Why does the media show no interest in covering viable populist political party’s or organizations?

The honest answer to these questions is the very same reason why the mainstream press hasn’t covered the part in President Obama’s State of the Union Address where he talks about reforming campaign financing laws. Instead of covering the issue head on, the mainstream press has chosen to cover the President’s attack of the recent pro-corporation decision rendered by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Honest, law abiding citizens want to reform U.S. government. We want to address the corruption and fraud within the government from our local city council’s all the way to our nations capitol. Many concerned citizens who consider themselves populists, have in the past, attempted to win public office. We’ve been largely ignored by the mainstream press and the two major party candidates not because we were unelectable or didn’t have a political agenda that wasn’t popular with the American people. Political news, candidates and important information is being suppressed by a political system that has it’s own agenda. Congress, the U.S. Supreme Court and President Obama know the truth. President Barack Obama has decided to speak out while everyone else is content with maintaining status quo. “We The People” only have one question, Why?

What’s happened to Democracy In America? And why have those in America who have the ability to raise public awareness on this issue remained quiet? We have concerts and events all across America to promote issues such as Farm Aid. What about American Democracy? Isn’t Of, By, and For “The People” worth organizing and fighting for? I’d expect media companies such as the Huffington Post to cover this story but, as in the past, I’m not holding my breath.

Dear President Obama, I personally want to thank you for raising this issue. It’s very important that we liberate our current body politic from the greed and corruption that holds America and its people hostage. The time has come for all U.S. citizens, of all color, to be freed from corporate tyranny and slavery. Let all men be free and equal. American justice must also be liberated and if a constitutional convention is required to restore justice across all segments of American society, so be it. I pray for your success and can only hold out hope that you’re 100% committed to these endeavors. That said, at 53 years of age, I’ve never been a member of the DNC or RNC for they are one in the same, 100% controlled by corporate agents of political influence.

January 27, 2010 –As one of Americas most outspoken Independents, I must admit that President Barack Obama made me proud to be an American. Tonights address has come a year late but to the Presidents credit it has finally arrived. Here are the key points that resonated with this reform-minded citizen.

1) President Obama addressed the frustration the American people have with Washington DC politics. As these remarks were made the entire U.S. House Chamber fell quiet. The President stated that we need full disclosure of all lobbyist activity that is published on a government website for all to see. This disclosure should include all corporate money funnelled through lobbyist that falls into the hands of members of Congress of both parties.

2) President Obama lashed out against corporate influence in U.S. elections. Domestic corporations and foreign corporations giving massive campaign contributions to members of both parties and how the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision did nothing to reduce or eliminate this problem. Again, the U.S. House Chamber fell completely quiet when President Obama told every U.S. Senator and U.S. House member that he wanted “real” campaign finance reform debated and passed for his signature.

Only having one television, I decided to examine how Fox News covered this address and couldn’t see how other MSM networks chose to edit their coverage. What I noticed on Fox while President Obama spoke on these important issues was a broadcast where the camera stayed focused on the President. On most other issues, while the President spoke the director would cut to different cameras that were pointed at members of both parties. Why Fox News chose to not provide the facial expressions of Congress while the President spoke, in a very quiet chamber is a question we should be asking Fox News.

3) President Obama spoke of our dis-satisfaction with the corruption of Washington DC government and the mainstream media. He spoke of our lack of trust in our federal government and media. These are the very issues that this site was created to address. I applaud any government official who will not only admit that these problems exist but will use their bully pulpit to elevate these issues into public view for all Americans to see.

That last point President Obama made that resonated with me was how he would give 30 billion dollars of TARP funds that were re-paid by the banksters to “Community Banks” for Small Business Loans. To recoup these funds the President said he’d support a small tax on the biggest banks who created our economic meltdown. If these banks have enough revenue to pay bonuses then they can help pay to fix the damage they created.

The next few months will become very telling. Is President Obama using these issues in a phony attempt to turn the current tide of discontent away from him and the democrats? For Americas sake, Lets hope that President Obama is speaking from the heart and is 100% committed in eliminating the fraud and corruption that has infiltrated our government from Wall Street to Main Street. If Congress fails to act, President Obama should use his executive power to eliminate electoral finance fraud and corruption. The FCC works under the guidance and direction of the President. If the President wants free airtime granted to all “serious and credible” candidates, an executive order should be all that’s required by law.

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and may or may not reflect the opinions of this site or its editors.

by Kevin Gosztola, OpEdNews.com Trusted Author & Publisher

The recent Supreme Court ruling that is widely believed to have opened the floodgates for unlimited corporate spending in elections has many citizens of America upset over the prospect of a nation where corporate power may no longer have to answer to any state controls.

The Supreme Court decision is believed to have nullified decades of law that imposed restrictions on the way corporations can impact elections. Calls to overrule the decision are already mounting. But, if we assess the current state of our nation’s managed democracy (a term from the great political philosopher Sheldon Wolin), does anyone really think that in the past decade regulations have actually prevented corporations from significantly influencing elections? Could corporate influence in elections really get anymore pervasive than it already is?

I’m just as inclined as the next liberal to look at the decision and lash out in opposition to it. I certainly empathize with Keith Olbermann’s remark during his “Special Comment” that this will now allow all the politicians to be prostituted all of the time instead of just some of the time. But, to me, the backlash against a decision, which is believed to do away with limits to corporate spending, is predicated on the notion that somehow we as a people have had freedom of choice in our democracy.

The reality is that we are a people who have acclimatized ourselves to voting for the lesser of two evils in each election. While other systems of government in other countries spanning the globe elect people from many different parties, we have two parties to choose from. And as Jesse Ventura has characterized it, that’s like going to the grocery store and finding only two soft drinks available—Pepsi and Coke. There’s no Mountain Dew, no Dr. Pepper, nothing else; just two drinks—Coke and Pepsi—one slightly sweeter than the other depending on your taste buds.

During the edition of Countdown that featured Olbermann’s “Special Comment” on the Supreme Court decision, constitutional law expert Jonathan Turley of Georgetown University suggested that the decision indicates this nation doesn’t just need a way to restore limits on corporate spending. This nation needs a fundamental “paradigm shift” in politics.

OLBERMANN: What can be done? I mean, legally, what now holds the corporations back from completely taking over the electoral process, 99.9 percent of advertising, 99.9 percent of winning politicians, no limit to the ante, and no limit to what they want to do, including eliminating the First Amendment, if that was one of their goals for some reason?

TURLEY: Well, I think you’re right to be alarmed. I mean, there’s only about 2,000 PACs that are created under the old system. That old system really has been shredded today. There are millions of companies and corporations that could — could now directly support this political system.

But I have to tell you, I have long argued that we are in need of more fundamental reforms. Campaign finance primarily looks at the fuel, rather than the machine, itself. I think that we have a political failure in this country, a monopoly by two parties that is strangling the life out of this republic. And I think that we need to, perhaps, with this decision, look for something of a paradigm shift, to look at how we can change our political system with very fundamental issues to deal with — everything from the Electoral College, which is a disaster, to the monopoly of the two parties, to the hold of incumbents.

There’s ample evidence from the past to suggest that what Turley has to say about campaign finance reform is accurate.

Many Americans are familiar with the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform, which enacted a ban on “soft money,” money that flows from businesses directly into political campaign coffers in 2002 just after the major corporate scandal with Enron. Despite the limits on “soft money,” the reform legislation doubled the amount of “hard money” that could be given by one person directly to members of Congress or presidential candidates from $2,000 to $4,000.

“In a climate of spiraling fundraising, and in the wake of the Enron debacle, Congress had the opportunity to pass real campaign finance reform that would have reduced the influence of money on American democracy. Unfortunately, politicians were not up to the task. . . the Senate passed a soft money ‘ban’ riddled with loopholes and actually increased the amount that the wealthiest individuals can contribute to candidates.”

Given the power of corporate, special, or private interests in Washington, one might wonder if the Fair Elections Now Act could even make it through committees in the House and Senate without being defanged like health “reform” legislation has been defanged. (Fair Elections Now is a bill introduced by Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Rep. John Larson of Connecticut that blends “small donor fundraising with public funding to reduce the pressure of fundraising from big contributors,” and it is being widely promoted by progressives and Democrats as a response to the Supreme Court decision.)

Lawrence Lessig, leader of Change Congress, even said after the decision, “It’s very difficult to see how any piece of legislation could undo the damage the Court did yesterday, and I think the American people need to consider all the tools at our disposal as we think about the kind of democracy we want to have and how we want to make it a reality.”

And, we all know how likely the Senate or the House is to do anything substantial in the wake of debacles, scandals, or situations that draw attention to the excesses of capitalism in America. Just look at how they’ve managed to hold Wall Street accountable for the economic collapse in this country in 2008 and even managed to properly regulate the bailout money that was given to banks to help so-called “too big too fail” banks survive…

Since most of the backlash to the Supreme Court decision seems to be fueled by those who fear they have lost the ability to influence elections and, therefore, corporations will now forever control the political process, it seems like–rather than take a chance on cobbled together and ultimately ineffective legislation–those upset should go a step further and support fundamental reforms that might might make it more possible for minorities and those voices often marginalized to have an impact in elections.

This fundamental reform could involve addressing the disaster that is the Electoral College.

The Center for Voting and Democracy offers several suggestions that could be considered like direct elections with instant runoff voting (IRV), proportional allocation of electoral votes, direct vote with plurality rule, the congressional district method, the national bonus plan, or the binding proposal.

Of those, the Center primarily supports the abolition of the Electoral College and the replacement of it with a system that involved direct elections and IRV.The Center explains:

“Instant runoff voting (IRV) could be used for Presidential elections with or without the Electoral College. With a direct vote, voters would rank their preferences rather than marking only one candidate. Then, when the votes are counted, if no single candidate has a majority, the candidate with the lowest number of votes is eliminated. The ballots are then counted again, this time tallying the second choice votes from those ballots indicating the eliminated candidate as the first choice. The process is repeated until a candidate receives a majority, reducing time and money wasted in a normal runoff election.??

Instant runoff voting on a national scale has the potential to solve many of the current dilemmas introduced by the Electoral College as well as the problems introduced by some of the other alternatives. It would end the spoiler dynamic of third party and independent candidates and consistently produce a majority, nationwide winner. It also allows voters to select their favorite candidate without ensuring a vote for their least favorite (as often happens when the spoiler dynamic is a factor and a voter prefers a third candidate the most).”

Most progressives would probably be thrilled to get rid of the spoiler dynamic since it would mean they would never have to get into another pointless and ultimately unproductive but divisive argument on third parties ever again.

Even better, those upset with the recent decision that opens the floodgates for unlimited corporate spending could support a movement to do away with our nation’s winner-take-all system and support a system of proportional representation instead.

“Proportional representation (PR) is based on the principle that any group of like-minded voters should win legislative seats in proportion to its share of the popular vote. Whereas the winner-take-all principle awards 100 percent of the representation to a 50.1 percent majority, PR allows voters in a minority to win their fair share of representation.

How does this work? A typical winner-take-all system of divides voters into “one-seat districts,” represented by one person. With PR, voters in a constituency instead have several representatives: ten one-seat districts might, for example, be combined into a single ten-seat district. A party or group of voters that wins 10 percent of the popular vote in this district, then, would win one of the ten seats; a party or slate of candidates with 30 percent of votes would win three seats, etc. Various mechanisms work to provide proportional representation, and the details of different systems matter. But the principle of full representation is fundamental. Acceptance of it changes the way one sees electoral politics.”

I encourage you to read more of Richie’s explanation of PR and how it works. I believe you will find it to be a hugely appealing solution to the marginalization of people in elections right now.

Any fundamental reform would have to wrest control of the debates from the Republican and Democratic Parties, which established the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) and seized control of the debates from the League of Women Voters in 1988. Since the League of Women Voters lost control, the CPD has regularly excluded candidates voters want to see debate, restricted formats so that candidates don’t really debate, and used secret debate contracts to set restrictions that greatly debase this nation’s democracy.

I temper my reaction to the decision because I mostly agree with Glenn Greenwald’s response to the decision, and I think Greenwald is right to assert that, “the First Amendment is not and never has been outcome-dependent; the Government is barred from restricting speech — especially political speech — no matter the good results that would result from the restrictions. That’s the price we pay for having the liberty of free speech.”

And, I think Greenwald is right to be skeptical of the “apocalyptic claims about how this decision will radically transform and subvert our democracy” because “the reality is that our political institutions are already completely beholden to and controlled by large corporate interests.”

But, if this is the catalyst that creates a movement of Americans who finally take back this nation and force corporate and special interests to cede control, I will fully support that movement. I will gladly contribute to any populist movement that challenges corporate personhood.

But, I think that ultimately taking personhood or “human rights” away from corporations, unions, or other entities would still leave us in a situation where power is concentrated in a “two-party dictatorship” or a one-party system with two wings that have cosmetic and minute differences.

On the other hand, taking aim at the electoral system could have its own way of diminishing the influence of corporate power in politics. It would give away to a political climate that could easily advance the repeal of provisions that have established corporate personhood in America.

Whatever happens in the aftermath of this decision, we should consider the words of Noam Chomsky:

“We can either predict the worst–that no change is possible–and not act, in which case we guarantee there is no change. Or, we can understand that change always is possible, even in the face of great odds, and act on that assumption, which creates the possibility of progress.”

This decision lays bare the need for independent political action in this country. It lays bare the necessity for letting all citizens know of opportunities to engage in that independent political action. And, it calls for citizens who are willing to connect with others to discuss the shortcomings and pratfalls of our system so that a vibrant movement of people can rise and bring the honeymoon corporations and special interests have enjoyed for too long to an absolute end.

Anything and everything we do will be met with struggle. But, if we have the courage to engage in struggle–to, as Robert Jensen writes, not just “struggle against illegitimate structures of authority in the abstract” but also struggle to “find the facts, to analyze clearly, to imagine solutions, to join with others in collective action for justice, and struggle to understand ourselves in relation to each other and ourselves as we engage in all of these activities”–we just might surprise ourselves and succeed at what we set out to do collectively.

The onus is on us to seek out ways we can act. Maintaining a state of civic adolescence must come to an end now if we wish to stop any of this madness at all.

Charles Overby has a foot planted firmly in two very different worlds. In one, he is a champion of the free press. In the other, he is part of a group at the helm of a corporation that has worked hard to limit freedom of information and the ability of the press to inform the public.

In one world, Overby is chief executive officer of the Freedom Forum, a foundation created by former USA Today publisher Al Neuharth, and its Newseumâ€”located on Pennsylvania Avenue, blocks from the Smithsonian and the Capitol, and which literally has the First Amendment etched onto its 75-foot marble edifice. He is a Pulitzer Prizeâ€“winning editor and reporter, former vice president of news and communications for Gannett, the largest U.S. newspaper chain, and former management committee member of both Gannett and its flagship paper USA Today.

What Overbyâ€™s Freedom Forum biography does not disclose is that since 2001, heâ€™s been a director of the Corrections Corporation of America (CCA).

This omission is easy to understand when you juxtapose the Freedom Forumâ€™s guiding principlesâ€”â€œfree speech, free press and free spiritâ€â€”against CCAâ€™s recent actions and attitudes toward the press and freedom of information.

CCA, the nationâ€™s largest private jailer (holding more than 70,000 prisoners in over 60 facilities, and taking in $1.6 billion in revenue for 2008), spent millions of dollars from 2007 to 2009 successfully lobbying against two bills: the Public Safety Act of 2007 (which would outlaw private prisons) and the Private Prison Information Act of 2007. As no hearing was ever held on the Public Safety Act, itâ€™s likely that the bulk of these resources went to suppress the PPIA.

As introduced to the 110th Congress by Rep. Tim Holden (D.-Pa.), the PPIA would bring privately owned and operated prisons contracting with the federal government under the purview of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). In June 2008, Holden alluded to the amount of adverse pressure facing the bill in his testimony before the House Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security:

In recent weeks, opposition to this bill has mobilized. Although I cannot testify on their behalf, I can reiterate my concern that opposition to this bill is opposition to reporting transparency.â€¦As you will hear, repeated attempts to ascertain information from these institutions have been rejected, if not ignored completely.â€¦Roughly 25,000 federal criminal prisoners are jailed in private facilities at any given time. Yet private prisons are not required to publicly disclose information about their facilitiesâ€™ daily operations.â€¦Without strong FOIA requirements, we cannot assure whistleblowers are able to come forth and gather evidence they need to support any claims; we cannot assure public safety is paramount if the information provided is not on-par with the information provided from our public state and federal institutions.

Holden went on to relate the findings of the Ohio Correctional Institution Inspection Committee, made up of members of the Ohio General Assembly, which conducted a surprise inspection of the CCA-owned Northeast Ohio Correctional Center in 2006. The facility, which CCA bills as â€œlow security,â€ is under contract with the Federal Bureau of Prisons and the U.S. Marshals Service.

The committee found that there had been 44 prisoner-on-prisoner assaults at the facility between June 2005 and May 2006; by comparison, there were 305 recorded assaults in all of Ohioâ€™s 32 correctional facilities during 2005. When members of the media inquired about the severity of the assaults and what subsequent actions had been taken by prison administrators, they received no reply.

The PPIA died before the subcommittee with the expiration of the 110th Congress, no vote being taken on it. â€œOur information was that lobbying by or on behalf of the privates had killed it,â€ said Alex Friedmann, associate editor of Prison Legal News and vice president of the Private Corrections Institute. Friedmann had testified before the subcommittee on behalf of the bill.

The only witness to testify before the subcommittee against the bill was Michael Flynn, director of government affairs for the Reason Foundation (publisher of Reason magazine)â€”which has received funding from the private prison industry, including CCA.

Overby declined to comment on his involvement with CCA and the corporationâ€™s efforts to curtail freedom of information. Nor did Overby have any comment the only other time his connection to CCA has been publicly raised, by former USA Today reporter Jim Hopkinsâ€™ Gannett Blog (4/14/08).

As a CCA director, Overby is also a shareholder in the corporation. According to Security and Exchange Commission records, he was awarded stock options for 26,918 shares in 2008 and 2009 under the corporationâ€™s incentive plan, simply for being reelected to the board. According to Forbes.com, Overby received a total of $198,610 in compensation as a CCA director in 2008.

Throughout the pitched battle between CCA and the press over PPIA, Overby remained silent, never weighing in to defend the assertions of media representatives and lawmakers that public inquiry into federally contacted private prisons should be backed by the FOIA.

From 2007 to 2009, CCA employed five sets of lobbyists assigned to several federal issues, including the PPIA. However, none of these groupsâ€”which had budgets in the hundreds of thousands of dollarsâ€”approached the monetary or professional clout of the corporationâ€™s A-list lobby assigned to the PPIA.

This team was composed of Overbyâ€™s colleagues at CCAâ€”executives such as CEO Damon Hininger, general counsel Gus Puryear, former Bureau of Prisons director and CCA senior vice president Michael Quinlan, and vice president of federal and local customer relations Bart Verhulst. These executive-level lobbyists expended $3.45 million lobbying against the Public Safety Act and the Private Prison Information Act over the course of 2007 and 2008.

While Overby is not registered as a lobbyist along with other CCA top brass, he has paid $35,000 into the CCA political action committee from 2003 to dateâ€”$10,000 of which was donated in 2007â€“08. During this period, the PAC gave thousands of dollars in campaign contributions to House crime subcommittee members Zoe Lofgren and Dan Lungren, and to Judiciary chair John Conyersâ€”none of whom had benefited from the PAC prior to the introduction of the PPIA in 2007.

Peter Sussman is a co-author of the Society of Professional Journalistsâ€™ Code of Ethics and a member of the SPJ Ethics Committee. While pointing out that he was not speaking for the SPJ, and that he had no prior knowledge of Overbyâ€™s involvement with CCA, Sussman called this â€œdual allegianceâ€ troubling:

If youâ€™re promoting freedom of the pressâ€”and itâ€™s always been my understanding that the Freedom Forum does thatâ€”and at the same time appearing to purchase limits on press access to places that are acting on behalf of the public by contractâ€”that just seems wrong…. It also troubles me when I hear that the head of an organization devoted to the freedom of the press wonâ€™t talk to the press about his own alleged conflict.

He said that this conflict of interest is especially egregious, as the press is only seeking access to institutions carrying out a function which has traditionally been one of the core responsibilities of the government:

The only way we are going to effectively evolve crime policies, the only way weâ€™re going to be able to monitor the behavior of people who have sole control over other individuals without the access to the public that most other people haveâ€”the only way weâ€™re going to do that is to allow the public, through the press, to look into the operations of these institutions and the behavior of the people who run themâ€”and also talk to those incarcerated to get their perspective on this crucial public function that we have so far failed to handle effectively.

Last May, Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee reintroduced the bill as the Private Prison Information Act of 2009, citing concerns that the private prison industry, along with the Office of the Federal Detention Trustee, may be fabricating reports concerning immigrant detainee populations in order to gain additional funding and influence immigration policy. From the billâ€™s reintroduction through October, CCA has spent $540,000 on three sets of lobbyists with a stated interest in the PPIA.

SIDEBAR:
Freedom Forumâ€™s Peculiar Priorities

While the Freedom Forumâ€™s mission statement declares that it is a â€œnonpartisan foundation dedicated to free press, free speech and free spirit for all people,â€ it is unclear how it actually works to achieve these goals.

The Forum, a tax-exempt organization that reported assets in excess of $1 billion at the end of 2007, funds three primary projects: the Newseum, the First Amendment Center and the Diversity Institute. The Forum does not engage in litigation or file amicus briefs on behalf of litigants, as do many other high-profile First Amendment champions, such as the ACLU. Instead, the Forumâ€™s focus lies in education, and its main vehicle is the Newseum. In its new location across the street from the National Mall, the Newseum attracted more than 700,000 visitors in its first year.

The museum, which has been home to both Ted Kaczynskiâ€™s cabin and Tim Russertâ€™s desk, is also home to the News History Gallery and the Great Hall of Newsâ€”paid for through $10 million grants from News Corp and the New York Times, respectively. It even houses its own Ethics Center, where visitors can test their ethical acumen through interactive kiosks.

The Newseum building, which occupies 643,000 square feet of prime D.C. propertyâ€”purchased by the Forum for $100 million in 2000â€”is also home to 135 luxury apartments.

To be sure, the Freedom Forum does benefit other journalistic endeavors. According to tax filings from 2007, the most recent available, the Forum gave $6,000 to the International Press Institute, $5,000 to the International Womenâ€™s Media Foundation, $30,000 to the Inter-American Press Association and $32,000 to the Horatio Alger Association of Distinguished Americans (on whose board Forum CEO Charles Overby also sits), among others.

The Forum gave Overby $482,000 in wages and benefits in 2007, with another $95,000 in expenses. Freedom Forumâ€™s founder and current senior advisory chair, retired Gannett CEO and USA Today founder Allen Neuharth, also drew $225,000 in compensation, plus an additional $200,545 in expenses from the Forum in 2007.

Then there are the many non sequitur charitable contributions: $5,000 to the United States Equestrian Team, Inc., $5,000 to the National Organization for Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, $10,000 to the Basilian Fathers Missions, $10,000 to the United Way of Brevard County (Florida), Inc., and so on. (For more examples of Freedom Forumâ€™s peculiar priorities, see Gannett Blog, 12/30/08.)

However, the forumâ€™s greatest single beneficiary in recent yearsâ€”outside of internal causes such as the Newseumâ€”is the University of Mississippi, which received $5 million from the Forum toward the construction of the $7.5 million Overby Center for Southern Journalism and Politics.

Description: An investigation into the billions of dollars being stolen from this country’s Medicare system.

TEASE:
DAN RATHER (VOICE OVER)
TONIGHT. STEALING FROM MEDICARE. WE TAKE YOU TO THE FRONT LINES WITH FEDERAL AGENTS WHO ARE TRYING TO STOP BILLIONS OF TAX DOLLARS FROM BEING SIPHONED OUT OF THE SYSTEM.

KIRK OGROSKI, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, “We treat doctors the same as we treat any other criminal. If they’re stealing money from the taxpayers, they get treated just like they’re stealing groceries out of a grocery store.”

RATHER (ON CAMERA)
GOOD EVENING. TONIGHT, GAMING THE SYSTEM IN A BIG WAY. WE START WITH AN INVESTIGATION OF MEDICARE. THE NATION’S INSURANCE SAFETY NET FOR SENIORS AND THE DISABLED. THE PROGRAM HAS BEEN A LIFESAVER FOR MILLIONS OF AMERICANS. IT’S ALSO BEEN CREDITED WITH KEEPING HEALTH CARE COSTS DOWN. BUT WITH BILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN PAYMENTS GOING OUT EVERY YEAR, THERE’S A LOT OF ROOM FOR FRAUD. IT’S NOT TOO STRONG TO SAY — MEDICARE IS BEING PILLAGED AND PLUNDERED. BUT WHAT DOES WASTE, ABUSE AND FRAUD ACTUALLY LOOK LIKE? AND WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR IT. IT TURNS OUT THOSE ARE QUESTIONS WITH MANY ANSWERS BECAUSE THE FRAUD AND THEFT IS SO WIDESPREAD. WE BEGIN TONIGHT WITH A SMALL GOVERNMENT AGENCY THAT HAS THE DAUNTING TASK OF CRACKING DOWN ON HEALTH CARE FRAUD.THEY ARE AGENTS ON ASSIGNMENT FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES — OIG, THE OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL.

RATHER (VOICE OVER)
ITâ€™S 6AM IN SUBURBAN DETROIT, AND THESE OIG AGENTS ARE ONE OF FOURTEEN TEAMS THAT ARE FANNING OUT ACROSS THE REGION FOR SIMULTANEOUS RAIDS AIMED AT DISMANTLING AN ALLEGED PHONY HOME HEALTH CARE RING.

ZEOLA CAREY, SPECIAL AGENT
We want all the financial documents that are found separated from everything else.

MALE OIG AGENT
Everybody set?

CAREY
As set as we’re gonna be…

MALE OIG AGENT
Okay, everybody be safe.

RATHER (VOICE OVER)
OIG IS HERE IS BECAUSE THIS ALLEGED FRAUD TARGETED MEDICARE, THE GOVERNMENT RUN INSURANCE FOR SENIORS… THAT MEANS THIS OPERATION – MONTHS IN THE PLANNING – IS ALL ABOUT RECOVERING YOUR TAX DOLLARS. THE BEST ESTIMATE IS THAT EVERY YEAR MEDICARE IS DEFRAUDED BY 60 BILLION DOLLARS. SOME OF THE SCHEMES ARE THE WORK OF OLD-FASHIONED HUCKSTERS AND SCAM ARTISTS AND SOME OF THEM ARE HATCHED IN THE BOARD ROOMS OF FORTUNE 500 COMPANIES. OIG AGENTS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR TRACKING DOWN AS MUCH OF IT AS POSSIBLE, WHEREVER THE TRAIL LEADS.

(knocking on the door. â€œPolice, search warrant!â€)

RATHER (VOICE OVER)
THIS CAN BE A DANGEROUS BUSINESS.

FBI AGENT
Morning, how ya doin?

RATHER (VOICE OVER)
OIG AGENTS ARE ARMED WITH GUNS, BADGES AND ARREST WARRANTS. THEY ARE BACKED BY THE FBI AND LOCAL POLICE.

STEVE RINALDI, OIG
You go inside immediately in the door to the left…

RATHER (VOICE OVER)
STEVE RINALDI LEADS A GROUP OF AGENTS RESPONSIBLE FOR ARRESTING A MAN WHOM THEY SAY WAS POSING AS A DOCTOR, CREATING FALSE MEDICAL FILES ON PATIENTS HE NEVER HAD.

RINALDI
He’s hired by the facility to provide health care, but he’s actually unlicensed and has never been licensed.

RATHER (VOICE OVER)
JUST MINUTES LATER, RINALDI AND HIS TEAM GET THEIR MAN – THE ALLEGED FAKE DOCTOR IS LED OUT IN HANDCUFFS. A FEW MILES AWAY, ANOTHER GROUP OF AGENTS RAID THE MILLION DOLLAR HOME OF DR. PRAMOD RAVAL. RAVAL IS A REAL DOCTOR, BUT HE’S ACCUSED OF SELLING PATIENT NAMES TO THE HOME HEALTH COMPANY THAT ALLEGEDLY BILLED MEDICARE FOR $14.5 MILLION DOLLARS. THEN CAME THE SEIZING OF EVIDENCE – HUNDREDS OF BOXES WORTH OF IT, OUT OF DR. RAVAL’S CLINIC ALONE. HIS WAS ONE OF FOUR OFFICES RAIDED THIS MORNING, FILES, MEDICAL RECORDS, AND COMPUTERS – NOW THE PROPERTY OF OIG’S INVESTIGATORS. ALL TOLD 35 OIG AGENTS, ALONG WITH LOCAL AND FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT, COOPERATED ON THE RAID. THEY’RE PART OF WHAT’S KNOWN AS A “MEDICARE STRIKE FORCE,” AN INTER-AGENCY APPROACH TO MEDICARE FRAUD THAT WAS PILOTED IN MIAMI AND NOW HAS SPREAD TO SEVEN CITIES. BY LUNCHTIME, THIRTEEN INDIVIDUALS HAVE BEEN ROUNDED UP. THE AGENTS HEADING INTO HARMS WAY WERE NOT THE ONLY PART OF THE DETROIT “STRIKE FORCE”. WHILE THEY WILL BE MAKING THE ARRESTS IN THE FIELD, SOMEBODY HAS TO MAKE THE CASES IN COURT. SO A GROUP OF LAWYERS FROM THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT WAS ALSO BROUGHT INTO TOWN.

KIRK OGROSKI, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
In the strike force we treat doctors the same as we treat any other criminal. If they’re stealing money from the taxpayers, they get treated just like they’re stealing groceries out of a grocery store. Read More →

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and may or may not reflect the opinions of this site or its editors.

by Kevin Gosztola

Flickr Photo by Damon Lynch | This is a picture from an Amnesty International “Close Gitmo” demonstration outside the US Embassy at Grosvenor Square in London on January 11, 2008. It had been six years since the U.S. authorities first transported ‘war on terror’ detainees to Guantanamo

When we consider the indignity and inhumane treatment that detainees at Guantanamo have experienced and the torture and abuse which has surely inflamed Islamists who fill the ranks of al-Qaeda-like networks, what is our nation’s collective reaction? How do we respond? Does the thought of Guantanamo even matter to us?

Do the thoughts of detainees at Guantanamo being subjected to acts that we Americans would probably think could only occur to victims of crimes depicted in Law & Order, SVU or CSI affect anyone? Have we any empathy for those who have not been afforded a trial, or, if innocent, not been released?

Eight years ago, the first detainees arrived at Guantanamo Bay. They arrived dressed in “turquoise blue face masks, orange ski caps and fluorescent orange jumpsuits, their hands in manacles.” They were not considered prisoners of war under the Geneva Convention.

Over the course of the past eight years, there have been countless reports of abuse and violations of the law. Guantanamo has provided Americans with an example of the behavior and operations of American forces at other prison sites all over the world that should be far from acceptable.

Days after being inaugurated, Obama issued three executive orders that banned the use of enhanced interrogation techniques (Cheney’s euphemism for torture), pledged to close Guantanamo, and began a review of all pending cases at Guantanamo.

This press event could be considered a publicity stunt that was designed to stave off angry human rights, civil rights, and/or civil liberties advocates who had been ramping up pressure on Obama throughout his presidential campaign so that he would make a promise to close Guantanamo once he got into office. Fortunately, those angry groups did not let up. On top of right wing hysteria and Cheney’s national security speaking tour, the groups forced Obama to further explain how he would take action on Guantanamo in a press event in May 2009.

During the event, Obama declared, “instead of bringing terrorists to justice, efforts at prosecution met setbacks, cases lingered on, and in 2006 the Supreme Court invalidated the entire system.” He also stated, “Guantanamo set back the moral authority that is America’s strongest currency in the world.”

Obama further explained:

“Instead of building a durable framework for the struggle against al Qaeda that drew upon our deeply held values and traditions, our government was defending positions that undermined the rule of law. Indeed, part of the rationale for establishing Guantanamo in the first place was the misplaced notion that a prison there would be beyond the law – a proposition that the Supreme Court soundly rejected. Meanwhile, instead of serving as a tool to counter-terrorism, Guantanamo became a symbol that helped al Qaeda recruit terrorists to its cause. Indeed, the existence of Guantanamo likely created more terrorists around the world than it ever detained.

So the record is clear: rather than keep us safer, the prison at Guantanamo has weakened American national security. It is a rallying cry for our enemies. It sets back the willingness of our allies to work with us in fighting an enemy that operates in scores of countries. By any measure, the costs of keeping it open far exceed the complications involved in closing it. That is why I argued that it should be closed throughout my campaign. And that is why I ordered it closed within one year.”

But, once he took on this issue, it became clear that he would not seek to mold consensus or work to alleviate the disinformed fears of Americans who are afraid of the “terrorists” being held at Guantanamo. It became clear he would not consistently challenge conventional wisdom that Guantanamo was making our country safer (even though he said something along this line in his speech on national security). Read More →

Jesse did another great show. The artwork in the Denver Airport was very disturbing. Why would the government use a mural with dead and dying children to decorate an airport? This is in part 5. The link is below.

Also, the retired colonel in control of the government bunker in Cheyenne mountain seemed like he really enjoyed the question about shooting people who wanted to seek shelter there. This is in part 6.

As Thomas Paine said, “The trade of governing has always been monopolized by the most ignorant and the most rascally individuals of mankind.”

If the United States is a government of, by and for the people, why do the local, state and national governments ignore our wishes and best interests and why do we have to beg a prosecutor to prosecute crimes committed against us? How are we the people supposed to be able to control the government?

No matter how many times you are forced to repeat it, there is no magical type of government which provides liberty and justice for all. Instead, all forms of government, no matter what you call them, result in rule by an aristocracy as government agents are given various powers over the general public. Some agents have very limited power and some have vast power. Therefore, if you want liberty and justice and don’t want tyranny and oppression, the question that any intelligent person should ask is, “How can we keep aristocratic government agents from abusing their power?”

Our Nations Founders understood this, and in the Constitution, they provided us with the means to hold government agents accountable. However, those means have been undermined, and the two most powerful means of controlling government have been eliminated.

If you take a look, you’ll learn how they get away with violating our rights, abusing their power, and committing horrible crimes. My article on torture includes a link to the U.S. Supreme Court case which explains how one of our stolen rights makes the difference between justice and injustice, between freedom and slavery.

To learn about the horrible abuses which are being committed right now by government agents in our country, see my article about torture at the link above, and for some history on the harm that results when the people lose the power to hold government accountable, see http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/ and http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM to see how many millions were murdered by their government in the 20th century.

What if there was a way to make sure that the votes were counted accurately or that election theft was exposed?

What if there was a way to dramatically increase your opportunity to obtain justice?

What if there was a way to protect yourself from abuse by banksters and lawyers?

What if there was a way to elect people who would abide by the Constitution and take action to restore our rights?

What if there was a way to make these politicians keep their promises?

What if a few people wanted to try to achieve these goals?

Do you? If so, let me know.

Remember, if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem. Will you help destroy our ability to control the government or will you spread the news and demand that our rights to control the government are restored?

“The Fleecing of America” is a news segment on NBC Nightly News that started with Tom Brokaw when he was the anchor for NBC. Fleecing? According to http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fleecing means: To strip of money or property by fraud or extortion. Kinda like the Banksters are doing with current and recent foreclosures and evictions of our elderly, working class and poor.

It’s ironic that major broadcast newsrooms will delve deep into government fraud and corruption, that is, unless such fraud and corruption is in their own backyard.

Once again Mainstream Media, How many millions if not billions of dollars have you deposited (using the public airwaves that belong to “We The People”) in revenue $$$ obtained from U.S. Elections? The Fleecing of America starts and ends right here! The fact that this issue is avoided at all costs by members of the MSM should be all the proof “We The People” need.

Tomorrow, the FCC should hold hearings and adopt strict rules and regulations that grant free airtime to all candidates running for public office at any level. We should demand nothing less.

Does the FCC work for us? (we sign their paychecks), or the elite who have stripped American citizens of our right to practice open and inclusive western democracy.

The answer to the first question, Yes. Without money to feed the media the average citizen has a difficult if not impossible task of winning an election. Exceptions are few and far between. Fact: Jesse Ventura became Governor of Minnesota on a $ 300,000.00 bill. I raise this issue because of information I obtained while watching Conspiracy Theory on TruTV. During a recent episode of this weekly show, Governor Ventura said, “Soon after becoming governor, I was summoned to the basement of the Minnesota Capitol where I was questioned by a cordial and respectful gathering of over 30 CIA agents. What they wanted to know was how did I win the 1998 election as an Independent?”

“Note” To date, Jesse Ventura is the highest ranking Reform Party winner since becoming a political party in 1996. Fact: Since 1996, the mainstream press has shown little if any interest in covering the mission, principles or candidates of the populist Reform Party of the United States of America.

To answer the second question, since 1992, I’d say talk radio has swung right of center. Independent or left of center radio shows are few and far between. Political television programming has taken on more of a corporate approach rather than left or right. What’s good for corporations makes the nightly newscast or is political fodder for the Sunday morning political shows.

The fact that few have ever heard of the names listed in question 3 makes my point. Professional broadcasters such as Thom Hartmann have earned a spot to host a political news or opinion show for a major network. The fact that none of the mainstream broadcasters want populist opinion entering into the public debate proves my point of media bias and internal media corruption. With the exception of Lou Dobbs, the same absence of progressive or independent hosts in mainstream radio exist, and it isn’t because of lack of talent or lack of demand for populist/progressive content.

In essence, the mainstream media is in the business of dumbing down Americas body politic. In a democracy this reality has worked to weaken or eliminate the “consent of the governed” from the entire political equation.

Do America a favor, send this page as a link to everyone in your inbox. And, Google the names in question 3 for the populist truth and nothing but…

If you spend much time around Spokane Washington you’re bound to see advertising that reads, “Buy Local”. This program was started by Dawn Picken, a former television news reporter who currently works for the Spokane Chamber of Commerce. Great job Dawn…

While gathering information for this piece, I couldn’t help but remember the fact that this very same institution (Spokane Chamber), back in 1993-1995 and perhaps beyond, provided office space and amenities for Eastern Washington’s NAFTA representative. Those, such as myself, who promoted “Buy American” back then were frowned upon. Other than the complete destruction of Americas economy by greedy, self-serving corporate banksters, I cannot think of any other logical reason why the Spokane Chamber would now, in 2010, change its tune? To avoid complete hypocrisy, I wonder if the Spokane Chamber would support “Bank Local”?

From a populist viewpoint it only makes sense to support businesses in your own backyard. Corporations like Bank of America, Citi, Chase and other multiple state or national banks have shown their true colors, they’re in it for themselves and don’t really care about individual common people. That said, why would any common person care about the health and well being of Bank of America, Citi or Chase?

Community banks and credit unions are where common people belong. For those who live in North Dakota, you have the option of doing business with the only state owned bank in the entire country. Governors from the other 49 states would be well advised to learn from North Dakota. Here’s a link to a wiki article about the Bank of North Dakota.

Are we ready to wise up? If not, what will it take to get you to bank locally? I’m saying goodbye to Citi. Why? should be obvious if you’re a college football fan and you’ve been watching the bowl games.Â You’re watching the BCS sponsored by Citi… That’s right, Citi receives billions in government bailouts and still has enough change laying about for bonuses and ultra expensive TV ads to hopefully improve their already tarnished image.

Kleargear.com: Give It a Negative Review; It Can Legally Fine You $3,500 & Ruin Your Credit Ratings with All 3 Credit Reporting Bureaus:By Marc ChamotConsumerism extortion?? One big REASON why I am NOT a BIG fan of online shopping…..Just yet.“Read the fine print FOLKS, before you use your credit cards online…But not limited to DEBIT cards and Pay Pal, an […]

Death of American New & Used Car Salesmen:By Marc ChamotAccording to Yahoo Finance; the car salesman has become passé, like the dinosaurs…They don’t have the luxury anymore to cheat, or overcharge customers on badly made automobiles and vehicles.The car salesman has become another casualty of the Internet information age.As for me, I am in the market for […]

Obama Poll Numbers Collapsing; Swing Voters Sour on Democratic Party:"Look at me; I could never stand the man, I campaigned against him as commentator, blogger and on social networks...Grew tired of it, because I saw he was on self destruct MODE, it was like beating on a DEAD CLOWN!!..."A new poll shows that non-ideological swing voters have walked […]